Mark O'Mara files Motion for Sanctions Discovery

7/29/2019 Mark O'Mara files Motion for Sanctions Discovery

1/66

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEEIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND

FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDASTATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,vs. CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFAGEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant._________________________________DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONSCOMES NOW the Defendant, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, by and through his

undersigned counsel, and moves this Honorable Court to issue sanctions against the State forvarious discovery violations, and as grounds therefore states as follows:

1. That a witness known as Witness 8 has been identified by the State Attorney'sOffice as a witness having significant information regarding this case.

2. Witness 8 has been identified as the witness who was on the phone with TrayvonMartin leading up to the altercation with Mr. Zimmerman, and is in a position to have significanttestimony and evidence concerning the minutes leading up to the altercation.

3. It was disclosed by the State that this witness was interviewed by BenjaminCrump on or about March 19, 2012, and interviewed by Mr. de la Rionda in a sworn interviewon April 2, 2012. During the interview with Mr. Crump, Witness 8 stated that she was a juvenile,and that she did not go to the wake and funeral ofTrayvon Martin because her mother had takenher to the hospital where she stayed overnight. In the partially recorded conversation between

1


2/66

Mr. Crump and Witness 8 on March 19, 2012, Witness 8 stated to Mr. Cmrnp, in relevant part, asfollows:

BEN CRUMP:WITNESS 8:BEN CRUMP:WITNESS 8:

BEN CRUMP:WITNESS 8:BEN CRUMP:

WITNESS 8:BEN CRUMP:

WITNESS 8:BEN CRUMP:

And why couldn't you go to his wake?I was just sick ... that day.And what happened? Where did you go?I went on Friday urn Friday I was just sick so I just stayedhorne and then my marna carne and she took ... around 2something ... hospital the next day.So you had to spend the night in the hospital?Yes.And so this made you so sick that you had to get medicalassistance?Yes. . . . I was the last person talking to him and I fell .. .And that's when you realized that the day of his wake thatyou were the last person talking to him and it just made youphysically sick?Yeah.Okay.

Benjamin Crump Interview of Witness 8, Part A7, 00:32 (attached hereto as Exhibit "A").4. In addition, in the April2, 2012 sworn interview conducted by Mr. de la Rionda,

in relevant part, the following occurred:MR. DE LA RIONDA:WITNESS 8:MR. DE LA RIONDA:

WITNESS 8:

Okay what happened?I didn't feel good.Okay did you end up going to the hospital orsomewhere?Yeah. I had like, urn, high blood pressure.

2


3/66

See April2 , 2012 Interview with Witness 8 (attached hereto as Exhibit "B").5. Finally, on August 2, 2012, Witness 8 was flown to Jacksonville1 for yet another

interview by Mr. de la Rionda. According to the deposition testimony ofWitness 8, thisinterview (which was not recorded and it is unknown whether or not it was sworn) was theinterview when Witness 8 told Mr. de la Rionda that she had in fact not gone to the hospital andlied about it to him, and to Mr. Martin's family.

6. It is interesting to note that Mr. Crump has also contended in various publicappearances that Witness 8 was a juvenile, suggesting that she should, therefore, be entitled toeven greater protection. The State Attorney's Office, particularly Mr. de la Rionda, neverdisavowed, or corrected Mr. Crump's statements that Witness 8 was a juvenile, at least up untilthe time that an offhand reference questioning whether she was a juvenile was made by Mr. de laRionda at a hearing scheduled before this Court on October 19th 2012. 2 At that hearing, basedupon the offhand, confusing reference ofMr. de la Rionda, defense counsel inquired, both onrecord and after that hearing, as to the meaning ofMr. de la Rionda's statement regardingwhether or not Witness 8 was a juvenile. That question was not answered.3

7. Witness 8' s deposition was taken on March 13, 2013. During that deposition,Witness 8 testified under oath that she had advised Mr. de la Rionda in the above referencedAugust interview that she was an adult, and had not, in fact, gone to the hospital; that she had1See FDLE Investigative Report #58 (attached hereto as Exhibit "C").2 MR. DE LA RIONDA: I know who the person is, and I've cited the person. But we're very far afieldhere, speculating, with all due respect to Mr. O'Mara, as to who the person is. He knows the name,because I've disclosed the name. But there's been an indication here she's a juvenile. Have they proventhat?( emphasis added) October 19, 2012 Hearing before this Court at 37: 12 (attached hereto as Exl1ibit"D").3 It became apparent that Mr. de la Rionda knew that Witness 8 was an 18 year old adult in April of2012when he interviewed Witness 8. However, the State redacted that information from the Defense when itprovided the witness interview, and did not release that information to the Defense until months later.

3


4/66

lied about going to the hospital when she advised Mr. Crump of that statement, and that she hadalso lied to Mr. de la Rionda when she told him in the Apri l2, 2012 sworn interview that she hadgone to the hospital. The reason Witness 8 gave for lying to Mr. Crump was that TrayvonMartin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, was present during the interview. Similarly, Witness 8 statedthat she told Mr. de la Rionda the same lie because during Mr. de la Rionda's sworn interview ofWitness 8, for unknown reasons, Ms. Sybrina Fulton was sitting next to her, and Witness 8similarly felt the need to deceive as to the reason for not going to the wake or funeral.

8. That defense counsel made initial inquiry in this regard by email to the State,attached hereto as Exhibit "E", requesting information regarding those hospital records in orderto save time and resources. No response was forthcoming.

9. After receiving no response to the request in the email, defense counsel followedup with a letter, attached hereto as Exhibit "F", requesting that information again. Similarly, noresponse was forthcoming.

10. In addition, undersigned counsel avers that several conversations occurredbetween undersigned counsel and Mr. de la Rionda or Mr. Guy on behalf of the State Attorney'sOffice, where the issue of hospital records documenting Witness 8 s hospitalization werediscussed and requested. No response was forthcoming.

11. Since these letters and conversations proved to be of no avail, on or aboutFebruary 21, 2013 undersigned counsel filed a motion for issuance of a Subpoena Duces Tecumto Witness 8 to accomplish receipt of these medical records. To the motion, no response wasforthcoming.

12. This is significant because Mr. de la Rionda knew this information well beforeeven the first email referenced above as Exhibit "E" was sent, and before the second

4


5/66

correspondence listed above as Exhibit "F", yet continually failed to inform undersigned counsel.It was in that context that the State failed to inform undersigned counsel of this significant andexculpatory information until such time as the evening before the Subpoena Duces Tecummotion was to be heard by this Court.

13. It was not until approximately 7:00p.m. on March 4th, the evening before thehearing that the undersigned counsel was contacted by Mr. Guy who advised that, in fact,Witness 8 was not truthful about her hospital stay, and had lied to Mr. Crump and SybrinaFulton. It is also now known that Witness 8lied to Mr. de la Rionda during his April2, 2012interview of her, which, for unknown reasons, occurred under the unique circumstances of beingconducted in the presence of other state witnesses such as Sybrina Fulton. Based upon thisevidence, it is apparent that the State Attorney's Office was fully aware that Witness 8 lied aboutthe relevant and significant parts of her testimony, and the State knew this no later thanAugust 2, 2012.4 In addition, the decision to conduct the interview in the living room ofMs.Fulton's home, and to allow any other state witness, particularly the decedent's mother, to besitting next to the witness during the interview, when Mr. De la Rionda had to know the potentialinfluence that could occur, places the legitimacy and veracity of the entire statement at issue.

14. The decision by the State Attorney's Office to fail to disclose this information waswillful, voluntary, and caused the undersigned counsel additional time, frustration and effort toattempt to find out this information through other means such as additional correspondence,additional conversations, additional investigation, delay in scheduling the deposition of Witness8, and finally the filing of a Motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum.

4 When asked on March 5111 how long the State knew Witness 8 had not gone to the hospital, the Stateresponded, "Frankly I just don't think that's necessary. They can depose the witness and ask her .. ."5


6/66

15. The evidence of Witness 8' s deceit in this regard is significant exculpatoryevidence as it goes to her credibility concerning her other statements and as such the StateAttorney's Office has an affirmative obligation under IJrady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) todisclose. See Defendant's Memorandum ofLaw in Support of ts Position Regarding theProsecutor's Obligation to Disclose Information previously filed on October 25, 2012 (attachedhereto as Exhibit "F").

16. As sanctions for this discovery violation, pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220 (n)(2)the Defense requests that this Honorable Court enter an order requiring the State Attorney'soffice to reimburse the Defense for all the time expended to seek out this information otherwisereadily available to the State Attorney's Office, and having to do so through additional letters,conversations, inquiries, investigations, the filing of the motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum, andother investigative efforts. An Affidavit of Attorney Fees will be presented at hearing.

17. As further sanctions for this discovery violation pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P.3.220(n) the Defense requests that this Court fine the Office of the State Attorney for this willfuland flagrant violation of discovery for their causing unnecessary delay in proper preparation bythe defense for this case, and admonish the State for failure to timely comply with its obligationunder Brady v. Maryland, and order strict and prompt compliance with discovery rules in thefuture.

18. As further basis for sanctions regarding this event, reference is made that thisfailure to disclose this exculpatory information comes on the heels of other such similardiscovery violations by the State, as addressed by previous motions. A sampling follows:

A. The State's continued failure to forward digital images of the injuries to Mr.Zimmerman's face, offering only a black and white photocopy, then an image generatedby a color copier, then finally, only after intervention by this Court, the requested digitalImages.

6


7/66

B. The State's misrepresentation to this Court and to defense counsel that it had providedevery report it was aware of from FDLE, DOJ, and the FBI.19. As to the first point, defense counsel would draw the Court's attention to the

Defense Motion to Compel Discovery filed October 12, 2012 (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"),and also to Exhibit "E", and "F" #4, where defense counsel repeatedly requested these imagesfrom the State.

20. As to the second point, the State, through Mr. Guy, advised this Court at thehearing on October 26, 2012 in response to undersigned counsel 's request for additionaldiscovery regarding reports from FDLE, DOJ, and FBI (See Demand for Specific Discoveryfiled October 11, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit "I") that the "State has supplied every reportthat it is aware of from FDLE, Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau ofinvestigations."See Partial Transcript from October 26, 2012 Hearing at 7 (attached hereto as Exhibit "J").

MR. 0 'MARA: I can present you evidence to support my position that I want everythingfrom FDLE pursuant to your court order, because we know from thedepositions we've taken that we haven't gotten it all. So I want somethingvery specific so that I know FDLE is giving us everything attached to theZimmerman case.THE COURT: Okay ... Mr. Guy, ifyou would like to respond.MR. GUY: What they've asked for in the specific demand is every conceivable shredor electronic piece of data to DOJ, the FBI, and FDLE, and to date theState has supplied every report that it is aware of from FDLE, Department

of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Additionally, we haveprovided the statement of every witness that has been taken by a memberof those agencies. So I submit to date the State has complied with itsobligation under the Florida Rules ofDiscovery.

Id. at 6-7. And again when asked by the Court:THE COURT: Mr. Guy, do you know if there's anything else out there? Have you askedthem?

7


8/66

MR. GUY: Mr. de la Rionda has spoken with those agencies, and again to ourknowledge there are no reports yet furnished by the FBI or DOJ. And wehave turned over the reports so far furnished by FDLE. And, again, as theCourt mentioned, it is a continuing obligation, and we will continue tocontact those agencies and see if any repmis or any other interviewsbecome available.

!d. at 11. When the issue came up again later in the hearing Mr. de la Rionda on behalf of theState responded:

MR. DE LA RIONDA: Now, I have gotten- I contacted the FBI. I've gotten all the FBIreports regarding witness interviews, and I've provided them. I amstill constantly checking, so if there's something, you know, thathave gone through, I'll try and get them. But I've provided those,including evidence that wasn't favorable to the State where theyinterviewed an associate of the Defendant who said he's not aracist or etcetera. I provided all those under my obligation. And Icontacted them. I will continue to contact them. But from what Iunderstand, they have an ongoing - I don't want to know whatkind of investigation they've done because, quite frankly, that'snot regarding this specific case.

Jd. at 20-21.21. Within thirteen days from that hearing, the State provided to the Defense its 9th

Supplemental Discovery where it disclosed an additional35 FDLE reports and an additionallOFBI reports not previously provided to the Defense, even though the State represented that it hadprovided all the reports it was aware of. See State's 9th Supplemental Discovery Disclosuredated November 8, 2012 attached hereto as Exhibit "K". Every one of those reports had beenprepared and dated prior to the October 261h hearing and the State's statements. Many of therepots dated as far back as March or April2012. This Comi may recall that once the 9thSupplemental was received, that led to requests for information identified by that release, andfurther led to a subsequent Motion to Compel production of that information. This Court thenauthorized defense counsel to go to FDLE and once there, even more additional information wasdiscovered, not previously disclosed by the State.

8


9/66

WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests this Court to issue sanctions pursuant toFla. R. Crim. P. 3.220 (n)(2) against the State as outlined in paragraphs 16 and 17 above, andadditionally for the violations outlined in paragraphs 18-21.

Respectfully submif\ed,

~ ~ 1;1y: . . 'Florida a r $ ~ ~kiZ I M . ESQ!. IRE0 'Mara Law Grf{up J. ) 7 1 v 1 "1416 East Concord StreetOrlando, Florida 32803Telephone: (407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) 898-2468E-Mail: [email protected] for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoin as been furnished byU.S. Mail/Facsimile/Hand Delivery this 25th day of March, 2013 t ernie de la Rionda,Assistant State Attorney and John Guy, Assistant State Attorney, Offi e 1 f the State Attorney,220 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3429, and Donald f. rst, Esquire, 636 West

Yale Street, Orlando, Florida 32804. \ ~ \1J - - - - - - - -

9


10/66

Exhibit A

enjamin Crump Interview ofWitness 8


11/66

Bernie De La Rio: Okay. I, I'm saying that they did. I just wanna make sure that the recordis clear on that. Urn, you, ah, obviously found out about what happened to Trayvon, right?And at some point you ended up knowing that he was killed, correct?Speaker 2: Yeah.Bernie De La Rio: Were you able to go to the funeral or to thewake? Speaker 2: I was gonna go, but.Bernie De La Rio: Okay, whathappened? Speaker 2: I didn't feel good.Bernie De La Rio: Okay. Did you end up going to the hospital orsomewhere? Speaker 2: Yeah. I had like, urn, high blood pressure.


12/66

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENTINVESTIGATIVE REPORT

On Thursday March 15, 2012, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FOLE) received arequest for assistance from Norm Wolfinger, State Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit,requesting that FOLE assist their office with an investigation into the February 26, 2012,shooting death of Trayvon Martin.On Thursday, August 2, 2012, at approximately 1045 hours, at the request of Duval Countyls1ta1te1A1tomey's Office {DCSAO}, SA Ken Moore and SA G. White picked up a witness. II i&in the area of Northwest Miami-Dade County, FL and transported the witness to FlLauderdale airport ln Broward County, FL for a flight to Jacksonville, FL.These Agents had no further involvement in this case to date.

Case Number. OR-01-0071 Serial#: 58Author. Moore, Kenneth Wayne Office: MiamiActivity Start Date: 08/02/2012 Act!vitv End Date:OS/09/2012Approved By; Kuhn, Susan H.Descrlption:Transport Witness to Ft. Lauderdale AirportTHIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WASDISSEMINATED AND MAYCONTAIN JNFORMA TION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED ORCONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDE.R APPLICABLE LAW. ITSCONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page: 1 of 1 215420121107131926

-


13/66

Exhibit D

October 19 Hearing Video


14/66

From:To:Cc:Subject: Discovery issDate: Thursday, August 23,20121:45:00 PH

Bernie,Following up with some discovery issues:-The CD you gave us at the evidence viewing containing Wit 9's two interviews on March 20, 2012would not play on any of our machines. I'll bring it with me tomorrow to show you. Please provideus with another copy.-As we have discussed, we want to have a complete set of unedited witness interviews. Forexample, we noticed that the Wit 9 call to the SPD was 30 seconds longer in the copy that you gaveus at the evidence review than the one you initial ly gave us in discovery. I can see no reason whywe wouldn't be provided with the complete recordings of all the witnesses and I thought you hadalready agreed to that. Obviously, your office has them since, as I understand it, your staff madethe initial edits.-We would like to have an inventory of the discovery provided to Judge Lester for his in camerareview and how it got to him if you didn't deliver it to him personally.-Also, we still don't have color images of the cell phone pictures taken of the back of Zimmerman'shead, the flashlight found nearby and of Trayvon Mart in laying facedown the night of theshooting. We only have been provided wi th black and white photocopies.

took these pictures according to discovery reports and provided them to law """''"r'r"'r""''"t-As well, we don't have the color image of Zimmerman's face that Ofc. Wagner took at the scenethat was used for ident ificat ion with neighborhood witnesses. I believe he also took a picture ofMr. Martin's face. We don't' have a color image of that either. We have only been provided witha black and white photo copy. I thought you had previously agreed to provide those as welL-We don't have the evidence inventory/log from FDLE that you had at the viewing. We need thatin order to move forward with the depos of the FDlE personnel.-We don't have the SIM card informat ion from Trayvon Martin's phone that was downloaded byFDLE analyst Steve Brenton that he talked about at the evidence viewing, nor have I seen anyreport prepared by him. I'm sure there must be a report outlining what he did and what hecouldn't do with the phone.-1 am still unclear about the sketches various witnesses made during their interviews. At one pointwe gave you a list of those we didn't have. I can't remember where that stands, I don't think yougave us any of them at the evidence review. We need another copy and I apologize if you gavethem to us at the evidence review and I've misplaced them. I assume they would be hardcopiesand I can 1 t find them.-Several witnesses have been listed "c/o SAO". I want you to provide us with their actual

E ~ h \ \t


15/66

addresses so we can conduct our own investigation. ! am not opposed to maintaining their privacywith the public and am not asking you to file a discovery response with thei r addresses. You can filea sealed pleading or just give them to us and we will keep the in format ion confidential if you want.

-Much of the interview Mr. Crump did with is uninte!!igible. I don't know if therecording was on tape or digital recorder or how it may have been recorded. Do you have anoriginal tape of the interview? If so, please bring it with you so we can listen to lt on Friday,perhaps it is better quality than our copy. Do you know if you have the original or if Mr. Crumpretained the original recording and gave you a copy?Please bring these items/information with you on Friday so we can move discovery along.I wasn't clear from our conversation at the evidence viewing whether or not the Facebookaccounts and Twitter accounts of Trayvon Martin and ave been requested by thestate and are pending. I got the impression that the state has not attempted to retrieve thatinformation. Please le t me know if you plan to do that if you haven't, ! believe it may take searchwarrant to accomplish.Also, please advise if you have Trayvon Martin's school records, if so, we would like a copy ofthem. As well, do you have hospital records that would confirm that she washospitalized at the time of Trayvon Martin's wake as she told Mr. Crump and you during yourinterviews?We got the total station diagram and photos, but don't have the location data captured by thesoftware. Can you provide the raw data used to prepare the report?Lastly, with regard to Trayvon Martin's phone, there is a reference in the reports that Tracy Martinwas asked to provide the password to his son's phone so law enforcement could gain access to itscontents and Mr. Martin indicated to law enforcement that he wanted to speak with his attorneyfirst. ! can't find a reference in the reports or in your interview with Mr. Martin that that the issuewas addressed. Are you aware of what happened with that? We want to examine the contents ofthe phone and according to the FDLE analyst, it would be a simple thing to do with the password oreven with the email account associated with the phone.

We are planning to go forward with depos on, Thursday, August 3oth. We plan to depose some SPDofficers and SFD Rescue personnel so we shouldn' t need your help getting them there at thispoint. We can work on the logistics on Friday.Thanks,DonI'm around today if you want to follow up with anything by phone.

cellDon West law Group, P.A.


16/66

636 W. Yale St.Orlando, Ft 32804407 425-9710


17/66

don west bw group, p..a.636w. yale ~ e t . orhmdo, ftorida 32804 tel (40'1) 425-9110 fax (407) 425-8287d o m ~ e s t @ d o n w e s t b w g T o u p . c o m www.donwesl.bwgroup.oom

September 19, 2012Mr.Bernie de laRiondaState Attorney's Office220 But Bay StreetJoobcmville, PL 322023429

I saw my copy of he email you sent to Mark today regarding the next round ofdisoovery andthat yoo a r e ~ some of the discovery issues we discussed at the meeting on.Au.gust24th, 2012. In that regard, since there were several matters up in the air, Iwut to outline theaspects of he discoverj requests I think are waiting for your response and offer a little moredetail. About three weeks ago I provided a detailed email to yoo regarding some discovery issuesthat we wanted to address with you.. We talked about them in some detail at the meeting we badfollowing the last motion hearing on August 2411l, but to date there's been no specific response.by your office to several ofour requests. However, I'm ,glad to know you. are preparing a response now. We feel that many of hese requests direCtly impact the discovery depositionschedule and we think they need to be addressed before we can move forward with the importantdepositions. I will identify those discovery issues we 'Would like you to address. When we meton .August 24th, it seemed there were several items that you. agreed to provide and some others thatwe didn't rmch a clear undemanding ofwhere you stood. I would like to clear that up With thiscorrespondence and work togedler to avoid wmecessaiy litigation.Specific Discovery Requests:

I. As stated in the previous email, the first CD we received ofWitness9's statements didnot include her second interview with FDLE. The CD you. gave us to replace it would notplay on our machines (u verified by John Guy at our meeting). We have still ootreceived a CD with all ofher statements. Please provide us with a replacement CD thatcontains aU ofWitness 9's statements.


18/66

2. Regarding the various witnesses' recorded statements. on several occasions we haverequested a copy of he n ~ r e d a c t e d recorded interviews. I thought you had agreed toprovide that information, but to date we have not received those an-redacted recordedinterviews. For example,< as I pointed om in the email, we received two redacted versionsofWitness 9' s initial anonymous call to the Sanfoni Police Department and those vary h1length by as much as 30 seconds. We don*t know what was redacted from the otherswithout having an r e d a c t e d copy. It's my understanding that your office produced theredacted copies originally so I assume that you have the originals available or certainlycould get them easily enough.

3. We have also previously discussed an inventory list of he discovery provided by youroffice to Judge Lester. Because of he issue regarding the completeness of he CDscontaining Witness 9' s statements, we would like you to provide us with an inventory ofthe discovery provided to Judge Lester for his in camera review.

4. At the meeting on August 24th, you provided us with color photocopies of he images forwhich we had previously only received black and Those imagesincluded the cell phone pictures taken the back ofZimmerman'shead, the flashlight found at the scene, and Tmyvon Martin's body lying face down onthe grass. There were also the two images taken by Officer Wagner on his cell phone foridentification of he individuals involved in the incident showing the face ofTmyvonMartin and showing Zimmerman's face. We also asked you for the digital images ofthose pictu:res rather than a color photocopy. We still have not received any of hoseimages in their original digital format.

5. We don't have the evidence inventory/log from FDLE that you had at the evidenceviewing last month. We need that in order to move forward with the depos of he FDLEpersonnel.

6. Likewise, I asked for a report by FDLE analyst Amy Siewert with the color photos shetook during her GSR examination (rather than the poor quality black and whitephotocopies of he images we were provided). I spoke with her and she offered to sendme a CD with the imagesy but calted back and said she was directed to send it to youinstead and that you would provide it to me. I still haven't received her report with thecolor images from you.

7. While we have the SIM card information from Trayvon Martin's phone iliat wasdownloaded by FDLE analyst Steve Brenton (that he talked about at the evidenceviewing), I haven't seen any report prepared by him. Please provide his report outliningwhat he did and what he oouldnt do with the phone. Again1 following up from my email,


19/66

with regard to Tmyvon Martin's phone, there is a reference in the reports that TracyMartin was asked to provide the password to his son's phone so law enforcement couldgain access to its contents and Mr. Martin indicated to law enforcement that he wanted tospeak with his attorney first I cant find a reference in the reports or in your interviewwith Mr. Martin that that the issue was addressed. Are you aware ofwhat happened withthat? We want to examine the contents of he phone. and according to the FDLE analyst,it would be a simple thing to do with the password or even with the email accountassociated with the phone.

8. I also requested that you provide us with the actual addresses of the several witnesses thathave been listed on the discovery response as "c/o SAO". I want you to provide u.s withtheir actual addresses so we can conduct our own investigation. I am not opposed tomaintaining their privacy with the public and am not asking you to file a discoveryresponse with their addresses. You can file a sealed pleading or just give them to us andwe will keep the information confidentiaL

9. At the meeting on August 24th, we discussed th


20/66

12. At the meeting on August 24th, we discussed the various state witnesses who wereinterviewed by the media whose interviews were broadcast in whole or in part over thepublic airwaves. We requested that you provide us with copies ofany audio or videorecorded interviews you had of the listed witnesses, but we have not received any of themto date. I fyou have some of these recordings, but claim they are not discoverable, pleaseadvise.

13. Likewise, we asked for any video recordings you had ofTrayvon Martin that areconnected in some way to him watching a fight, refereeing a fight or showed himfighting. You mentioned that you had seen a video connected to him in some wayregarding a bicycle. We were previously unaware of anything like that, but later saw aclip taken from his cell phone SIM card that may have been what you were referencing.Please provide any audio recordings or video recordings you have ofTrayvon Martin ormade by him regardless of the content. Also, in accordance with Brady v. Maryiand,provide any information you have regarding Trnyvon Martin's interest in fighting, hisknowledge and skiiJ in boxing or fighting and any information showing his interest inmixed martial arts including Twitter. Fuccbook. or other social media.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. I know all of us are anxious to move forward withdiscovery depositions in this case.

DRW/Ipp


21/66

IN TH E CIRCUIT COURT OF THEEITHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND

FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,Plaintiff,

vs.CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CF A

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITIONREGARDING TH E PROSECUTOR'S OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE

INFORMATIONCOMES NOW Defendant, George Zimmerman, by and through his undersigned

counsel, and files this Memorandum stating as follows:STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State Attorney's Office has failed, on multiple occasions, to deliver evidenceto the defense. The defense asserts that the State Attorney's Office has a duty to deliveran documents and information obtained by other arms of the government, including theFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ), and FloridaDepartment of Law Enforcement (FDLE). It is known to the defense that the FBI has

investigated civil rights issues involved in the case and the State Attorney's Office hasnot delivered all information from that investigation. To date, the defense has received 54pages from the FBI, through the state. While only supposition at this point, the defense

1

\


22/66

believes that the FBI, following its tradition of intense and vigorous investigation ofmatters in its charge, has created significantly more than 54 pages o{ documents. Thedefense also has not received all evidence relating to FDLE's investigation of all aspectsof the case. Additionally, the defense has not received any evidence from the DOJCommunity Relations Service relating this case.

ARGUMENT

In Brady v. Maryland, 313 U.S. 83 (1963) and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S.97 (1976), the Supreme Court determined that prosecutorial failure to reply to a specificdefense request for information in its possession but unobtainable by the defenseconstituted a denial of due process. The court has enunciated three requirements that thedefense must meet to establish a successful claim: "(1) the prosecutor's suppression of theevidence, (2) the favorable character of the suppressed evidence for the defense, and (3)the materiality of the suppressed evidence." Martinez v. Wainwright, 621 F.2d 184, 186(5th Cir. Fla. 1980); see also United States v. Preston, 608 F.2d 626, 637 (5th Cir. 1979)(quoting United States v. Delk, 586 F.2d 513,518 (5th Cir. 1978)).

The Prosecutor has an obligation to obtain, and provide for the Defendant,evidence that is held by other arms of the government. The Prosecutor is required todeliver evidence that is in their constructive possession. In Brady, the Supreme Courtheld that the suppression of material evidence by the state justifies a new trial"irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.Brady explained:

Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted butwhen criminal trials are fair; our system of theadministration of justice suffers when any accused istreated unfairly. An inscription on the walls of the

2


23/66

/d.

Department of Justice states the proposition candidly forthe federal domain: "The United States wins its pointwhenever justice is done its citizens in the courts." Aprosecution that withholds evidence on demand of anaccused which, if made available, would tend to exculpatehim or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bearsheavily on the defendant. That casts the prosecutor in therole of an architect of a proceeding that does not comportwith standards of justice, even though, as in the presentcase, his action is not 'the result of guile,' to use the wordsof the Court of Appeals.

Once a defendant requests the discovery of any favorable evidence material toeither guilt, non-guilt, or sentence, the prosecution's suppression of such evidence,whether in good or bad faith, violates due process. Id. The scope was expanded by theSupreme C o ~ in Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). In Giglio, the principalGovernment witness testified that he had not been offered immunity from prosecution asan incentive to testify. Id. at 151. It was subsequently revealed that a Governmentattorney had made such a promise to the witness in the preliminary stages of theinvestigation. Id. Although the Government attorney who tried the case was unaware ofthis agreement, the court held that the nondisclosure, whether stemming from negligenceor design, was the responsibility of the prosecutor. Id. at 154.

The prosecutor has a duty not only to disclose favorable evidence that a defendantrequests but also "to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on thegovernment's behalf, including police." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). Theduty exists whether or not the prosecutor knew of the existence of the evidence, if theevidence was in the possession of the government arm or generally provided only togovernmental entities. Martinez, 621 F.2d at 186-87.

3


24/66

In Martinez, it was undisputed that the medical examiner possessed an FBI rapsheet on the deceased victim. Id. It was standard practice for the medical examiner tosend finger prints of deceased victims to the FBI to receive FBI rap sheets as averification of identification. !d. at 187. The federal district court found that FBI arrestrecords are not provided to private individuals, but only to police and other investigatoryagencies. !d. at 187-88. The state trial judge commented to the prosecuting attorneyduring the course of the trial that a rap sheet, if in existence, would be obtainable fromthe FBI. !d. Nonetheless, the prosecutor assured the court that all known sources forobtaining a rap sheet had been exhausted and that he would have received a rap sheet inthe normal course of the investigation. !d. The court said that the fact that the prosecutorcontended that he was personally unaware of the existence of the rap sheet does notexcuse his misrepresentation to the trial court that a rap sheet was unavailable. /d. Whilethe prosecutor's actions can be characterized as only negligent i'(t)he deception whichresults from negligent nondisclosure is no less damaging than that deception which is aproduct of guile, and such negligent nondisclosure entitles a defendant to relief." /d. at187-88 (quoting Shuler v. Wainwright, 341 F. Supp. 1061, 1069 (M.D.Fla.1972},remanded on other ~ o u n d s , 491 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1974), accord, Grant v. Alldredge,498 F.2d 376, 382 (2nd Cir. 1974), United States v. Valdivia, 492 F.2d 199, 205-06 (9thCir.}). The court's conclusion that the prosecutor may be deemed to have been inpossession of the rap sheet, by virtue of its retention by the medical examiner, while theprosecutor assured the court that no such document existed, effectuates the purpose ofBrady andAgurs. Martinez, 621 F.2d at 187-88.

4


25/66

A contrary holding would enable the prosecutor "to avoid disclosure of evidenceby the simple expedient of leaving relevant evidence to repose in the hands of anotheragency while utilizing his access to it in preparing his case for trial," Martinez, 621 F.2dat 187-88 (quoting United States v. Trevino, 556 F.2d 1265, 1272 (5th Cir. 1977)). Thecourt therefore held that the information contained in the rap sheet was evidence bothmaterial and favorable to the defense, and found that its suppression by the prosecutiondenied Martinez a fair trial. Martinez, 621 F.2d at 189. Martinez unequivocally holds thatthe State Prosecutor must seek and deliver to the defense all exculpatory evidence froman law enforcement agencies, including federal agencies.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that GeraldSpagnoulo was entitled to a new trial after he was convicted of narcotics and weaponsoffenses on the basis of the government's failure to provide defense with psychiatricreport concerning his mental state. United States v. Spagnoulo, 960 F.2d 990 0 lth Cir.1992). While Spagnoulo awaited trial, a psychiatrist and psychologist at the pretrialdetention facility performed a psychiatric evaluation of Spagnoulo because of anunprovoked attack on another inmate./d. at 993. A report issued recommending thatno disciplinary action be taken against Spagnoulo for the unprovoked assault. !d. Basedupon the report, the government dismissed the assault charge. !d. The defense lawyer inthe assault case, which is a case separate from this case, obtained the report after havingfiled a motion to compel discovery. !d. The defense lawyer in the assault case thennotified the defense lawyer in this case of the existence and contents of the report. !d.Spagnoulo contended that the government's failure to provide the defense with the reportconcerning his mental state violated Brady. !d.

5


26/66

The government conceded that the fact that the report was in the possession of anFBI agent was of no consequence. Id. at 994. The former Fifth Circuit noted in UnitedStates v. Antone, 603 F.2d 566 (5th Cir.1979) that "this court has declined to draw adistinction between different agencies under the same government, focusing instead uponthe 'prosecution team' which includes both investigative and prosecutorial personnel." Id.The requirement that the government possess the evidence can be satisfied ifthe evidence was in the possession of the prosecutor or anyone over whom theprosecutor had authority. Id. (quoting United States v. Meros, 866 F.2d 1304, 1309 (11thCir.). Therefore, the court concluded that the fact that the prosecutor in this case wasdifferent from the prosecutor in the assault case was immaterial. Id.

The Supreme Court has recognized that "suppression" for purposes of a Bradyanalysis is not "measured by the moral culpability, or the willfulness of the prosecutor."Id. (quoting Agurs, 427 U.S. at 110). InAgurs, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holdingin Brady that the good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor was not a controllingconsideration. Spagnoulo, 960 F.2d at 995. Thus, in Spagnoulo, the government's failureto disclose favorable evidence in its possession to the defense constituted the"suppression of favorable evidence" despite the absence of guile, willfulness, bad faith ormoral culpability. Id. at 995.

In Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 518 (Fla. 1998), Officer Cleveland Smithapproached the defendant's counsel and informed them of other officers' reputations.While the court agreed with the general proposition that evidence suppressed by thepolice can constitute a Brady violation, the court concluded that there was no indicationin that case that Officer Smith's testimony was withheld by the police because the

6


27/66

statements were not part of any documents or report in the possession of the police. ld. at520. Officer Smith was not involved in the particular homicide investigation. ld. Further,there was no indication that he revealed the information to any investigator in the case. ld.In fact, he affirmatively testified that he told no one. !d.

Lloyd Chase Allen was convicted of first degree murder and grand theft of anautomobile and alleged that the State violated Brady by withholding the result of a hairanalysis performed on two hairs found on the victim's hand. Allen v. State, 854 So. 2d1255, 1258 (Fla. 2003). The State retained possession of the hair analysis. ld. at 1259.While Allen was aware that the State was conducting an analysis of the hairs, he was

never informed of the results. ld. The Supreme Court of Florida stated that Brady doesnot require that the defendant compel production of exculpatory material, or even that adefendant remind the State of its obligations. !d. Once the State obtained the results of thehair analysis, it was required to disclose them to the defendant. ld.

In United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the court applied a constructiveknowledge/possession doctrine to evidence that was only known to and possessed by theinvestigative arm of the prosecutor's office. In that case, the federal governmentconvicted the defendant, Hughes Anderson Bagley, ofnarcotics offenses primarily on thetestimony of two witnesses. Id. at 669-71, 673. Bagley requested prior to trial for theprosecutor to disclose materials relating to "any deals, promises, or inducements made towitnesses in exchange for their testimony." !d. at 669-70. The prosecution failed todisclose any material relating to any such promises. !d. at 669-70. Three years afterBagley's conviction, he made a request for information under the Freedom ofInformation Act of 1974. !d. at 670-71. In response, he received copies of form contracts

7


28/66

between the government's two witnesses and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms (ATF}, the law enforcement entity that investigated Bagley on behalf of theprosecution. !d. The form contracts were for the purchase of information relating toBagley's violations. !d. In the suit to vacate his sentence, the Assistant U.S. Attorney whoprosecuted Bagley stated that he had not known that the contracts existed and that hewould have disclosed them to Bagley had he known of them. !d. Although the Court didnot discuss the reasons for its implicit extension of Brady to materials outside theprosecutor's possession, the court found error in the nondisclosure because "theprosecutor failed to disclose evidence that the defense might have used to impeach theGovernment's witnesses," even though the court appeared to have acknowledged that theprosecution was unaware of and never possessed the suppressed evidence. !d. at 674-78.The Bagley court thus construed Brady to extend a prosecutor's disclosure obligation tomaterials possessed by other branches of the government-specifically, a prosecutor'sinvestigative arm.

A Motion for Production of a victim's FBI Report Sheet was made for the firsttime during trial in Yanetta v. State, 320 So. 2d 23, 24 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1975). The courtsaid that a defendant is allowed discovery concerning the criminal records of the State'switnesses to the extent that the information is in the actual or constructive possession ofthe State, "not limited to that in the physical possession of the State Attorney's office, andincluding data obtainable from the FBI." !d. (quoting State v. Coney, 294 So. 2d 82, 86(Fla. 1973). However, a defendant should not be permitted to use the pretrial discoveryprocedures to require the State Attorney to disclose information or documents which bythe exercise of due diligence, are readily available to him by subpoena or deposition . !d.

8


29/66

at 24 (quoting Coney, 272 So. 2d at 553). Therefore, since demand for the FBI ReportSheet was not timely made (during trial), and since it was not available when it wasdemanded, no error has been shown. Id.

In Gorham v. State, 597 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1992), Ada Johnson was the Sta te's keywitness. Receipts from the Pompano Police Department showed that Johnson receivedsubstantial payments for confidential information relating to other cases and the Stateadmitted that Johnson was a former confidential police informant. Id. at 784. A receiptdated June 9, 1982, also indicates that while Johnson was incarcerated during the periodbetween the defendant's, David Kidd Gorham, two trials she received ten dollars related

to this case from the Pompano police. Id. This information was never disclosed toGorham, and, thus, the defense was unable to attack Johnson's credibility by showing thatshe was biased. Id. at 784-85. Even though the police did not reveal Johnson's informantstatus to the state attorney who prosecuted Gorham's case, the state attorney was chargedwith constructive knowledge and possession of evidence withheld by other state agents,such as law enforcement officers. !d. at 784. The state attorney stated at an evidentiaryhearing that had he known about Johnson's informant status he would "certainly" havegiven that information to the defense because it "comes within the Brady definition." Id.

Given this trial's circumstantial nature, Johnson's role as the State's key witness,and the defense's inability to impeach Johnson based upon the undisclosed evidence, thecourt found that such a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to thedefense, the result of the proceeding would have been different did in fact exist in thiscase. Id. at 785. As the Court stated, "[t]he jury's estimate of the truthfulness andreliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, and it is

9


30/66

upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in testifying falsely that adefendant's life or liberty may depend." ld. at 785 (quoting Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S.264, 269 (1959).

The duty to produce requested evidence falls on the state and there is nosuggestion in Brady that different "arms" of the government are severable entities.Martinez, 621 F.2d at 184, 186 (quoting United States v. Deutsch, 475 F.2d 55, 57 (5thCir. 1973)). However, there is no suppression ifthe defendant knew of the information or

. had equal access to obtaining it. Maharaj v. Sec'y ofthe Dep't ofCorr., 432 F.3d 1292;1315 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005).

Disclosure of infonnation held by the state, as well as the other arms of the,government, will serve to justify trust in the prosecutor as "the representative... of asovereignty . . whose interest. . . in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case,but that justice shall be done." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 439 (quoting Berger v. United States,295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)) (emphasis added).

The State Attorney's Office has an obligation to deliver to the defendant allmaterial evidence from every arm of the government. The FBI, FDLE, and DOJ areincluded in the investigative agencies that the State has an obligation to deliver.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, George Zimmennan, respectfully requests thatthis Court order the State Attorney's Office, and its agents, to deliver all materialevidence regarding the investigation of the events surrounding the event involvingGeorge Zimmerman on the evening of February 26th, 2012, from any local, state, orfederal agency, including, but not limited to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement,

10


31/66

The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation and the Departmentof Justice, Community RelationsServices.

Submitted this 25th day of October, 2012.

Florida Bar No.:O'Mara Law Group1416 East Concord StreetOrlando, Florida 32803Telephone: ( 407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) 898-2468E-Mail: [email protected] for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has beenfurnished by U.S. Mail/Facsimile this 25th day of October, 2012 to Bernie de la Rionda,Assistant State Attorney and John Guy, Assistant State Attorney, Office of the StateAttorney, 220 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3429, d to Donald R. West,Esquire, 636 West Yale Street, Orlando, Florida 32804.

11


32/66

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDASTATE OF FLORIDAv.

CASE NO. 2012-001083-CFAGEORGE ZIMMERMAN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ /

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERYCOMES NOW the defendant, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, by and through counsel and

moves this Honorable Court to enter its order directing the State ofFlorida to provide thefollowing discovery pursuant to its discovery obligation under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220:

1. Digital, original format color copies of the cell phone photos taken byWitness 13 ofTrayvon Martin, George Zimmerman and a flashlight at the sceneof he shooting on February 26,2012.2. Digital, original format color copies of the cell phone photos taken ofTrayvon Martin and George Zimmerman by Sanford Police Officer Mike Wagneron the night ofFebruary 26,2012.3. Physical addresses for the several witnesses listed "c/o SAO" on the state'sdiscovery exhibits. Rule 3.220(b) requires the state to provide the witnesses'addresses as well as the witnesses' names. See also, Holmes v. State, 551 So.2d933 (5th DCA 1990).4. Access to and a true copy of the original recorded interview ofWitness 8made by the Martin Family attorney, Benjamin Crump, including a l ist ofpeoplepresent during the interview; the chain of custody of the recording, including thecircumstances of its release to the media (ABC News); and any reports by state orfederal agencies that had possession of the recording1

1 During a discovery meeting with the state prosecutors on August 24, 2012, wewere told by T.C. O'Steen, investigator for the State Attorney's Office, 4thJudicial Circuit, that the state received this recording from the FBI and not fromMr. Crump, but no additional information has since been provided,notwithstanding a written follow-up request.


33/66

WHEREFORE, the defendant urges this Honorable Court to enter its order directing thestate to provide the foregoing discovery/information.

Donald"R.. WestCo-Counsel for George ZimmermanFlorida Bar: 315941Don West Law Group, P.A.636 W. Yale St.Orlando, Florida 32804Telephone: (407) 425-9710Facsimile: (407) 425-8287

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of defend@nfs Motion to Compel

Discovery has been furnished by U.S. Mail/Facsimile/email this d a y of October, 2012 toBernardo de la Rionda, Assistant State Attorney and John Guy, Ass istant State Attorney, Offi ceof he State Attorney, 220 East Bay Street, Jacksonvil le ,c:3E.

Donald R. West


34/66

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TH EEIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN ANDFO R SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDASTATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

(/ }rn~zQhlC)p-ns;:

__..N0n.......

~ ....C5eE lco

vs. CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFAGEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.------------------------------'DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY

COMES NOW the Defendant, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, by and through his undersignedcounsel, and pursuant to Rule 3.220, Fla.R.Crim.P., hereby files this his Demand for SpecificDiscovery, demanding that the State of Florida forward true and accurate copies of all of thefollowing information:

1. The entire file from the Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement, including, but notlimited to, all documents, audio tapes, video tapes, electronic data in their native file (to include anyand all existing electronic copies of documents, reports, summaries, emails, text messages,interoffice. communications or any other data}, or any other information maintained by the FloridaDepartment ofLaw Enforcement in regards to State ofFlorida vs. George Zimmerman or any relatedmatters, including, but not limited to, investigation of the Sanford Police Department's handling ofthe initial investigation of the Trayvon Martin shooting, any communication between the FloridaDepartment of Law Enforcement and any other law enforcement or governmental agencies,including, but not limited to, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, DepartmentofJustice Community Relations Services, Seminole County State Attorney's Office, Duval CountyState Attorney's Office, Sanford Police Department or the City of Sanford.

Page 1 of 3

Q ~' .,. ~ ~ t l ~~ : D " " " ~-'l'"r.; : : ~ ~ ~ ~_:. : ;71()0-.:;::;:_:.rz; ;GO -

I . J ~ ; F r ' 1erne'S~ rn


35/66

2. The entire file from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including, but not limitedto, all documents, audio tapes, video tapes, electronic data in their native file (to include any and allexisting electronic copies of documents, reports, summaries, emails, text messages, interofficecommunications or any other data), or any other information maintained by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation in regards to StateofFlorida vs. George Zimmerman or any related matters, including,but not limited to, investigation of the Sanford Police Department's handling of the initialinvestigationof he Trayvon Martin shooting, or the issueofwhether or not there was a violation ofTrayvon Mart in's civil rights by George Zimmerman, and any communication between the FederalBureau ofinvestigation and any other law enforcement or governmental agencies, including, but notlimited to, Department ofJustice, Florida e p a r t m e ~ t of Law Enforcement, Department ofJusticeCommunity Relations Services, Seminole County State Attorney's Office, Duval County StateAttorney's Office, Sanford Police Department or the City ofSanford.

3. The entire file from the Department of Justice Community Relations Services,including, but not limited to, all documents, audio tapes, video tapes, electronic data in their nativefile (to include any and all existing electronic copiesofdocuments, reports, summaries, emails, textmessages, interoffice communications or any other data), or any other information maintainedby theDepartment of Justice Community Relations Services in regards to State ofFlorida vs. George .Zimmerman or any related matters, including, but not limited to, investigationof he Sanford PoliceDepartment s handlingof he initial investigationof he Trayvon Martin shooting, or its involvementin the quellingofsocial or racial tensions in Seminole County, and any communication between theDepartment of Justice Community Relations Services and any other law enforcement orgovernmental agencies, including, but not limited to, Florida Department of Law Enforcement,Federal Bureau oflnvestigation, Department of Justice, Seminole County State Attorney's Office,

Page2 of 3


36/66

Duval County State Attorney's Office, Sanford Police Department or the City ofSanford.

DATED THIS 11th day ofOctober, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,O'MARALAW GROUP

B y : . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - -M . 0 ' , EFlorida B No. 3597011416 East Concord StreetOrlando, Florida 32803Telephone: (407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) 898-2468E-Mail: [email protected] for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI certify that a copy of his document was delivered by facsimile transmission and/or emailto the persons listed below on October 11, 2012:

Bernie de la Rionda, Assistant State AttorneyJohn Guy, Assistant State AttorneyOffice of the State Attorney220 East Bay StreetJacksonville, Florida 32202-3429Donald R. West, Esquire636 West Yale StreetOrlando, Florida 32804

MA

Page 3 of 3


37/66

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEEIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN2 AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA,3 STATE OF FLORIDA,4 Pla in t i f f ,5 vs. CASE NO.: 2012CF1083A6 GEORGE M. ZIMMERMAN,7 Defendant.8 X

9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE1 0 DEBRA S. NELSON11 JUDGE OF THE COURT12 REPORTED BY:

SHELLY COFFEY, R.P.R.13 In Courtroom 50Seminole County Courthouse14 101 Bush BoulevardSanford, Flor ida15 October 26, 20121:30 p.m.1617 APPEARANCES:18 OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY19202122232425

22 0 Eas t Bay St ree tJacksonvi l l e , Florida 32202Attorneys fo r Pla in t i f fBY: BERNARDO DE LA RIONDA, ESQ.

JOHN GUY, ESQ.O'MARA LAW GROUP1416 East Concord St ree tOrlando, Flor ida 32803Attorneys for DefendantBY: MARK O'MARA, ESQ.

DONALD WEST, ESQ.LORNA TRUETT, ESQ.

ASSOCIATED COURT REPORTERS {407) 323-0808

1


38/66

1

234

56789

10111213141516171819202122232425

(APPEARANCES CONTINUED)HOLLAND & KNIGHT200 South Orange AvenueSui te 2600Orlando, Flor ida 32801BY: SCOTT PONCE, ESQ.Attorneys for media en t i t i e sTHOMAS & LoCICERO PL8461 Lake Worth RoadSui te 114Lake Worth, Florida 33467BY: GREGG D. THOMAS, ESQ.Attorneys for the Orlando Sent inel , WFTVand the Sun Sentinel

ASSOCIATED COURT REPORTERS (407) 323-0808

2


39/66

3

1 WHEREUPON:2 The fol lowing proceedings were had:345678910111213141516171819202122232425

THE COURT: Please be sea ted . Goodaf te rnoon.

MR. DE LA RIONDA: Good af te rnoon, Judge.THE COURT: Where i s counsel fo r the Defense?

Cour t s t a r t s a t 1:30.

su r e .MS. TRUETT: I apologize, Your Honor. I 'm not

(Whereupon, the re was a pause in proceedings .)THE COURT: We l e f t a note fo r them, d i dn ' t we?THE DEPUTY: Yes, ma'am. They ' re on t h e i r way

up, ma'am.{Whereupon, the re was a pause in proceedings. )MR. O'MARA: Good af ternoon, Your Honor. A few

minutes l a t e . I apologize . There was a problemwith some of the monitoring t ha t they j u s t had tot ry and re se t .

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. We're on therecord on Sta te versus Zimmerman, case number12CF1083A. Attorneys, please make your appearancesfor the record .

MR. DE LA RIONDA: Bernie De La Rionda onbeha l f o f the State of Flor ida .

MR. GUY: John Guy on beha lf o f the Sta te of

ASSOCIATED COURT REPORTERS (407} 323-0808


40/66

1

23456789

1011

1213141516171819202122232425

Flor ida .MR. O'MARA: Mark O'Mara on behalf of

Mr. Zimmerman.

4

MR. WEST: Don West here, with Mr. Zimmerman tomy l e f t .

MS. TRUETT: Lorna Truet t on behalf ofMr. Zimmerman.

MR. PONCE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Scot tPonce on behal f of the media organizat ions l i s ted onour papers.

MR. THOMAS: Gregg Thomas on behalf of theOrlando Sent inel and the South Florida Sun Sent inel .

THE COURT: Thank you very much. Before we gets ta r t ed today I wanted to provide to counsel for theSta te and counsel for the Defense the orderdisc losing the redacted medical records. This isthe or ig ina l . This one is for the Sta te . This onei s for the Defense. I have reviewed them. What Ihave done and provided to the Sta te along with theorder , and the Defense wants the order , instead ofmaking a l i s t of what is redacted an d what i s n ' tredacted, I 've copied every record, and the por t ionstha t are redacted are not in there , but it wil l havethe date of whatever the v i s i t may have been. Sothose are in the envelopes tha t are at tached to the



41/66

1

23456789

1011

1213141516171819202122232425

5

order , and your envelopes are not sealed , but theor ig ina l unredacted and the redacted ones are put inthe cour t f i l e under sea l .

MR. O'MARA: So I'm clear , tha t you've nowgiven the State the copy from which you've redactedcer ta in i tems?

THE COURT: Yes. I 've givenMR. O'MARA: Okay.THE COURT: Every page tha t has been provided

to the Court. Some of the pages j u s t have theheading of the Altamonte Family Pract ice with thedate or , you know, the heading par t , and whateverthe Court deemed not relevant or t h a t should beredacted has been redacted.

MR. O'MARA: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.THE COURT: We're here today, there are th ree

motions tha t were se t for hear ing. And I don ' t knowwhat order you want to go in . I was j u s t going togo by the not ice of hearing. The f i r s t one was theDefendant ' s demand for speci f ic discovery.

MR. O'MARA: Yes, Your Honor, and as to tha tmotion we had f i l ed a motion or a spec i f i c demandfo r discovery. As you reca l l l a s t t ime, I had to ldyou it wasn ' t r ipe . In the in tervening time I hadasked Mr. De La Rionda on behal f o f the State to



42/66

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425

respond to me, and I haven ' t go t ten a spec i f icresponse from the Sta te yet , bu t my reques t to theCourt i s qui te s t ra igh tforward .

6

THE COURT: I read your motion. I ' ve read yourmemo o f law. I 've read the cases t ha t you haveprovided . I f you have addi t ional argument - - no?

MR. O'MARA: I th ink every th ing ' s in t he re . Ij u s t simply th ink to summarize r ea l quickly .

The Sta te has an ob l iga t ion to ge t us what wec a l l Brady or informat ion sugges t ing it'sexculpa tory . Under the case law t ha t I ' ve c i t ed ,t h a t umbrel la goes out to o the r law enforcementagencies , inc luding federa l law enforcementagenc ies . That would include the FBI and Departmento f J us t i c e and FDLE.

I can present you evidence to suppor t mypos i t ion t ha t I want everything from FDLE pursuan tto your cour t order , because we know from thedepos i t ions we've taken we haven ' t go t ten it a l l .So I want something very spec i f ic so t ha t I knowFDLE i s giv ing us everything a t tached to theZimmerman case .

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. De La Rionda, if youwould l i ke to - - oh, Mr. Guy, if you would l ike torespond.



43/66

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

7

MR. GUY: Jus t br ie f ly , Your Honor.Judge, i f we can begin with the propos i t ion

tha t the Defense is not en t i t l ed to every shred ofevidence in possession of the Sta te . What they 'veasked for in the specific demand i s everyconceivable shred or elec t ronic piece of data toDOJ, the FBI and FDLE, and to date the State hassupplied every repor t tha t it i s aware of from FDLE,Department of Just ice and the Federal Bureau ofInvest iga t ions. Addit ional ly , we have provided thestatement of every witness t ha t has been taken by amember of those agencies. So I submit to date theSta te has complied with i t s obl igat ion under theFlor ida Rules of Discovery. And we understand it'sa continuing obl igat ion, an d we wi l l abide by tha t ,accordingly.

THE COURT: Okay. Rule 3.220 i s the discoveryrule here in the State of Florida and counsel, Iknow, are a l l aware of the rule , as is the Court.Subsect ion A binds the prosecutor and the defense toa l l the discovery procedures tha t are se t for tht he re in . Subsect ion B sets for th the prosecutor ' sobl iga t ion to d isc lose mater ia l within t h e i rpossess ion or control . Case la w includes thethe - - any mater ia l , even i f a par ty to any compact



44/66

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

8

or agreement with the FBI or any f ede r a l agencies .And in suppor t of t ha t propos i t ion I would c i t eSta te versus Cody a t 294 So. 2d. 82 Flor ida SupremeCour t 1973i Yanet ta , Y-A-N-E-T-T-A, versus Sta tefound a t 320 So. 2d. 23, the Third DCA 1975; andSta te versus Miranda, 777 So. 2d. 1173, a l so a ThirdDCA 2001.

So it seems tha t the Sta t e ' s response i s t ha tthey have provided everything there i s , and theyunders tand tha t they ' r e on a cont inuing ob l iga t ion ,so unless and un t i l t he r e ' s spec i f ic th ings t ha tneed to be addressed. I mean, j u s t th ink ing t he r e ' ssomething e l se out the re , yo u know, I 'm not going togo look a t f i l e s .

MR. O'MARA: I understand th e Court ' s ru l ing .So I shouldn ' t be arguing, you know, bu t here i sthe - - when the

THE COURT: Well, it's not necessa r i ly aru l ing . I mean, th e State has responded they 'veprovided every th ing , so .

MR. O'MARA: But we have evidence t ha t t ha t i sno t t rue in the pas t . So here ' s what I hear fromwhat you ' re saying and what the Sta te i s saying: I fwe can f ind out what it i s tha t we don ' t have, thenwe can come to you and demand them to give it to us .



45/66

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

9

I'll give yo u some examples of what they 've given ustha t i s inaccura te .

THE COURT: WellMR. O'MARA: So I can ' t well , here ' s my

problem: What you're asking me do i s take on theSta t e ' s burden. When you look a t Brady, look a t thecase law c i t ed , what it says i s they have theaff i rmat ive obligation to go get i t . So the FBI i sa per fec t example. I t ' s a la w enforcement agency.I t ' s covered by the case law. And what they ' resaying i s the only thing tha t we have i s 54 pages,and the FBI can give you tha t . But what I would askt h a t you do, and what you demand as the case law, i syou should s ta te to them tha t they have contactedthe FBI - -

THE COURT: I th ink tha t ' s what Mr. Guy - MR. O'MARA: No. No. No.THE COURT: Don't no, no , no me, please .MR. O'MARA: I'm sorry.THE COURT: I think Mr. Guy j u s t said t ha t he

has given everything. You know, you ' re asking me toalmost - - fo r me to prove a negative; I can ' t . Youhave means to take deposi t ions or whatever means areavai lable to see i f there i s any other informat ion.All of yo u are off icers of the cour t , and I have an



46/66

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

o f f i c e r of the cour t s tanding up a t the podium onthe record t e l l i n g me t ha t they have providedevery th ing t ha t they know i s ou t t he re .

10

MR. O'MARA: What he sa id wa s he providedevery th ing they gave him. He d id not say t ha tthey 've t aken on the a f f i r ma t ive obl igat ion o ft a lk ing to the FB I and saying what e l se do you have,and the case law spec i f ica l ly says t ha t they havet ha t ob l iga t ion .

THE COURT: I 'm very aware of the case law, andI 'm aware o f t he i r ob l iga t ion . I 'm assuming becausehe to ld me he knows he has an ob l iga t ion fo rcont inuing discovery , to supply any discovery t ha tt he y ' r e aware of, it's a cont inuing obl igat ion t ha tas an of f i c e r o f the cour t I am expec t ing him toabide by t ha t .

MR. O'MARA: Well, then - -THE COURT: So it's almost l i ke you ' re pu t t ing

th e c a r t before the horse . You' re saying t ha tthere - - I 'm sure - - you know, I suppose t he r e ' smore in format ion out the re . And I have somebodyt e l l i n g me t ha t the re i s not . So t h e r e ' s nowhere togo u n t i l t ha t becomes an i s sue .

MR. O'MARA: So then I ask fo r t h i s : I f it nowcomes back on our shoulders to go f ind out what the



47/66

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

11

FBI has in add i t i on to the 54 pages t ha t they 'vegiven to th e Sta te , and you ' re saying the Sta te hasno af f i rmat ive ob l iga t ion to go to t h e i r o the r lawenforcement agencies - -

THE COURT: I did not say any such t h ing .MR. O'MARA: Then let's have them say t ha t

they 've done t h a t because I d o n ' t th ink t ha t t hey 'vedone it, because I th ink they ' r e s t i ck ing t he i rhands in the sand about add i t iona l in format ionbecause everyth ing t h a t seems to come ou t seems tobe exculpa tory so t hey ' r e not looking fo r it. Sothe FBI --

THE COURT: Well, you ' re making s ta tements t ha tI d o n ' t know are t rue .

Mr. Guy, do you know if t he r e ' s anyth ing e l seou t the re? Have you asked them?

MR. GUY: Mr. De La Rionda has spoken witht hose agencies , and again to our knowledge the re a reno r epo r t s y e t furnished by the FBI or DOJ. And wehave tu rned over the repor ts so f a r furn ished byFDLE. And, again , as th e Cour t mentioned, it i s acont inuing ob l iga t ion , and we w i l l cont inue tocon tac t those agencies and see if any r epo r t s or anyo ther in te rv iews become ava i l ab le .

THE COURT: This Cour t - - what I 'm t r y ing to



48/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

12

say , Mr. O'Mara, i s t h a t a l l the lawyers know whatt h e i r discovery obl iga t ions a re . I f t h i s Court goesto t r i a l and something e l se comes out , the Sta teruns th e r i s k o f - - if t he r e ' s a gu i l t y verd ic t ,they run the r i sk of t h a t being s e t as ide orreversed and a new t r i a l ordered based upon somein format ion t ha t they f a i l ed or r e fused to g i ve .They ' re aware of t ha t . The case law t ha t youprovided i s very c l e a r on t h a t i s s u e . So, you know,I have the representa t ion from an o f f i c e r of thec o u r t .

MR. O'MARA: I a lso asked in my s pe c i f i c motiont h a t we get na t ive (phonet ic ) f i l e s and e lec t ron icdiscovery from FDLE. We have to avoid - - I wouldl i ke to show t h i s to the Court , if I might , j u s t togive yo u some in format ion . That i s what we rece ivedin discovery when we f i r s t asked fo r it, and I wantto make t h a t a composite exh ib i t so t ha t you get thef e e l of what it is t h a t we g e t as in format ionconcerning my c l i e n t .

THE COURT: Let me i n t e r r up t you fo r j u s t onesecond. Sara, if you w i l l make t h i s - - anyob jec t ions to t h i s be ing in t roduced?

MR. GUY: No, Your Honor.THE COURT: This wi l l come in as Defense



49/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

Exhib i t 1 to the defense demand for spec i f icdiscovery.

MR. O'MARA: And I would l ike to add, sinceit's a composite, these are o ther ones tot h a t composite.

see .

THE COURT: Any object ions?MR. GUY: Judge, i f I could jus t take a - THE COURT: Yes, you may.MR. GUY: The other ones I got a chance to

13

MR. O'MARA: And then, Your Honor, th i s wouldbe my second composite, which i s the second round ofinformat ion tha t we've gotten, which goes from -

THE COURT: Okay. Just l e t me take th i s stepby step. Any object ions to these documents beingadded to Composite 1?

MR. GUY: No.THE COURT: All r ight . Thank you.Any object ions to the Defense Composite Exhibi t

tha t they ' re seeking to int roduce as Number 2?MR. GUY: No.THE COURT: They wil l come in as composite

Exhib i t Number 2. Okay. I 'm sor ry . Go ahead andcontinue.

MR. O'MARA: Now, the f i r s t one is what they



50/66

1234

56789

10111213141516171819202122232425

gave us under the guise t ha t t he y ' r e giv ing us a l lthe discovery t ha t they have, and they would comein to you and say, wel l , we gave them every th ing .And t h a t was the f i r s t composi te .

14

Then we sa id what are these? They look l ikea bs t r a c t pa in t ings . Because as you can see , youc a n ' t tell anything of what they are . So then wes a id w i l l you, please , give us the na t ive f i l e s ,give us the ac tua l d i g i t a l photographs, because wea l l know in dea l ing with d i g i t a l photographs. Thenwe go t Composite 2, which are no t d i g i t a lphotographs . They are now co lo r copies o f what theygave us in 1; evidencing, of course , they had co lo rcopies to begin wi th , but they decided to give us asth e Defense - -

THE COURT: Okay. Let me i n t e r r up t you r i gh tthe re .

MR. O'MARA: - - the black and whi te .THE COURT: Do yo u have the disks or whatever

e l e c t r on i c means it was t ha t you pr in ted out thosephotos?

MR. DE LA RIONDA: Your Honor, may I respond tot h i s ? Since I 'm the one t ha t de a l t with t h i s , may Irespond - -

THE COURT: Yes.



51/66

1

23456789

1011

1213141516171819202122232425

15

MR. DE LA RIONDA: - - on beha lf o f the Sta te o fFlor ida? I provided what they gave me f i r s t whichi s black and white . Then they wanted color , bu t tomake sure the record i s c lea r , a l l t h i s evidence wasprovided to the Defense. They phys ica l ly went toth e FDLE. I arranged a meeting. They went overt he re and met with the FDLE agents , and we arrangedfo r a l l the evidence to be opened. And they had acamera. They took photographs o f a l l t h i s evidence,and then they sa id we want color . So then I wentback and asked them, and I provided no t a colorphotograph but the ac tua l d isk t ha t FDLE gave us o fthose i tems, those photographs t ha t the agen th imse l f took, the ana lys t .

THE COURT: So you ' re saying you provided themwith the d isk?

MR. DE LA RIONDA: That ' s c o r r e c t .THE COURT: Did you not ge t i t ?MR. O'MARA: The t h i r d t ime. My concern i s not

what they f ina l ly d id on the t h i r d t ime on t h i spa r t i c u l a r one; my concern i s t ha t there i sadd i t iona l evidence tha t we've been t ry ing to getfrom FDLE today. We would - -

THE COURT: But you ' re s tanding here arguingabout something now t ha t you've go t ten and - -

ASSOCIATED COURT REPORTERS {407) 323-0808


52/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

16

MR. O'MARA: Sorry.THE COURT: And if you have it, then t ha t i s no

l onge r an i s sue . What you ' re now seeking i sanyth ing t h a t you don ' t know of , they d o n ' t know o ft ha t may be ou t the re .

MR. O'MARA: This i s what I want: I want thee n t i r e t y of th e FDLE f i l e . Agent Lee seems to beth e c h i e f agen t in charge. I want FDLE through th es t a t e a t t o r ne y ' s of f i ce - -

THE COURT: Did you not go to FDLE?MR. O'MARA: We went to FDLE and took our own

p ic tu r e s , and a t FDLE t h a t ' s when we found ou t aboutTrayvon Mar t in ' s phone t h a t we had never known aboutbe f o r e .

THE COURT: I d o n ' t need to hea r a l l t ha t , b u td id you go to FDLE?

MR. O'MARA: Yes, I did .THE COURT: Okay.MR. O'MARA: And they d id not g ive me d i g i t a l

f i l e s .THE COURT: Did they open it a l l up fo r you?MR. O'MARA: No. Jus t the evidence , not the

f i l e s , j u s t the evidence , j u s t p ieces o f evidencet ha t we looked a t . They d id not g ive up - - Iunders tand t ha t I 'm ...



53/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

THE COURT: No. Go ahead.MR. O'MARA: Let me take a second.THE COURT: I want to ge t down to what you do

and do not - - were and were not provided.

17

MR. O'MARA: Here i s my concern and I have togive you some his tory because the evidence i s whereI am, a shor t history . We go in there to ta lk to - to take the deposi t ion of the person - -

THE COURT: I don ' t - - an d I don ' t mean to keepin terrupt ing you and I rea l ly apologize for tha t ,but I do want to take control over my hearings.

MR. O'MARA: Yes, ma'am.THE COURT: And i f you're saying tha t you

hadn ' t gotten something and then you f ina l ly got i t ,I real ly don ' t need to know about tha t unless you'reseeking some other remedy. So I jus t want to knowwhat it i s tha t you think you don ' t have tha t hasnot been provided to you, an d now we're ta lkingabout FDLE.

MR. O'MARA: Okay.THE COURT: And you said tha t you went there .

And while you were there, did they open up the i rf i l e s to you?

MR. O'MARA: No.THE COURT: Okay.



54/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

18

MR. O'MARA: No. What we're ta lk ing about i s atangible evidence review, so the phone and thetangible evidence, nothing to do with the i r f i l e .

What we found out in the depos i t ions , not goingtoo fa r in to i t , is tha t we did not have everythingtha t FDLE has. All I 'm t rying to do now i s a verysimple process. I f you were to en ter an order thatsays FDLE i s hereby ordered to ship over to O'Maraa l l t he i r d ig i t a l f i les , everything they have. Now,some of tha t wi l l be duplicated because they havegiven us some, but under tha t order I wil l now knowtha t I have everything FDLE has in th i s caseregarding my c l i en t , an d tha t ' s what I deserve.

THE COURT: Well, l e t ' s talk about tha t because3.220 says tha t the State is supposed to provide youthe r igh t to well , l i s t what they know isavai lable or the means to copy, inspec t . I t doesn ' tmean tha t they have to copy, inspec t . They have toprovide the defense the opportunity to go there andlook a t everything that they want t ha t ' s in thatf i l e and ask for what they want a copy of , becausethere may be thousands of things in a room. And i fyou only want a copy of one, why should they copythousands of things?

So you're allowed to go back to FDLE - - and i f



55/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

19

you want tha t in the court order , tha t ' s f ine . Youcan go back to FDLE and inspect t h e i r en t i re f i le onth i s matter and ask them to provide you with copiesof whatever you are seeking to have copies of.

MR. O'MARA: Agreed. And what I 'm asking foris e lec t ron ic copies, which i s not - -

THE COURT: Whatever i s in t h e i r f i l e .MR. O'MARA: Right. So I want the order to say

tha t I want to receive a l l of the FDLE discovery,what we ca l l native f i l e , which i s dig i t a l , sot he re ' s not thousands of pages. I wil l get a l lt he i r repor ts the way they generate them becausethey generate them not on typewr i ters anymore.

THE COURT: I understand. I understand.MR. O'MARA: That ' s a l l I want.THE COURT: Well, i f you wi l l give me a

proposed order, send a copy of it to Mr. De LaRionda, i f there ' s no object ion to the form of theorder , I wil l sign it as i s ; i f there i s anobject ion, I wil l readdress i t .

MR. O'MARA: Now, as to the Department ofJus t ice , we've received nothing. So i s it theSta t e ' s posi t ion t h a t - -

THE COURT: Well, we' l l ask them.MR. O'MARA: - - they have contacted DOJ and



56/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

there i s nothing?THE COURT: Was it e i ther you, Mr. De La

Rionda, or Mr. Guy who talked to DOJ?MR. GUY: I wil l defer to Mr. De La Rionda as

the person.THE COURT: Thank you.

20

MR. DE LA RIONDA: Your Honor, I guess it'sobvious. The Defense is aware. The FBI has beendoing an invest iga t ion separate from th i s case, andt h a t i s t he i r invest igat ion. We can ' t get involvedin tha t , in other words. That deals with secur i tymatters not jus t regarding th is spec i f ic case butalso other matters in terms of th i s community, an dso I don ' t th ink th is is our obl iga t ion to checkwith them when they ' re saying it's an ongoinginvest iga t ion. Now, I have gotten I contactedthe FBI. I 've gotten a l l the FBI reports regardingwitness interviews, an d I 've provided them. I amstill cons tant ly checking, so i f the re ' s something,yo u know, tha t have gone through, I'll t ry and getthem. But I 've provided those, including evidencetha t wasn' t favorable to the Sta te where theyin terviewed an associa te of the Defendant who saidhe ' s not a rac is t or e t c e t e ra . I provided a l lthose under my obl igat ion. And I contacted them. I



57/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

21wil l cont inue to contact them. But from what Iunderstand, they have an ongoing - - I don ' t want toknow what kind of inves t iga t ion they 've donebecause, qui te frankly, tha t ' s not regarding th isspec i f ic case.

THE COURT: Well, who's making tha tdeterminat ion?

MR. DE LA RIONDA: The FBI ir. terms of - - theycan subpoena they can ask the FBI. They have theauthor i ty to go subpoena them. They can requesttha t from the FBI, and then the FBI ge ts to respondto tha t . I t ' s not my obl igat ion to go and get t h a tfrom the FBI when it's an ongoing invest iga t ion.In terms of whether it's c iv i l r igh ts or not orwhether there was a police department invest iga t ion,I th ink tha t ' s what Mr. O'Mara i s t ry ing to get a t .

THE COURT: The case law says, basica l ly , tha t ,you know, the Defense would have to exhaust a l lmeans avai lable to get the addi t ional informationtha t they think exis ts an d has not been produced.So t h a t ' s what I meant by maybe we' re taking theca r t before the horse. Have yo u inquired bysubpoena or otherwise of the FBI or Department ofJus t ice r igh t now?

MR. O'MARA: The answer i s no, and I believe



58/66

1

23456789

1011

1213141516171819202122232425

22

th e r eason why i s because I do t h ink t ha t theS t a t e i s - - and I th ink the case law suppor ts it. Ith ink you re fe rence it pa r t i a l l y , bu t we can focuson some of the cases t ha t say - -

THE COURT: I ' ve read every s ing le one of th ecases . I ' v e highl ighted them. I spent the e n t i r en igh t l a s t n igh t doing t ha t , so I am aware of it.But even in the Sta te versus Miranda case , in t h a tcase th e Thi rd Dis t r i c t Cour t of Appeals sa id , whereit was undisputed t h a t th e s t a t e made e f f o r t s toand t h i s was not a case t ha t you had provided .Where it was undisputed t h a t th e s t a t e made e f f o r t sto ob ta in in format ion not in its a c t u a l possess ion ,which th e t r i a l cour t ordered produced, they went onto say defendant made no a t t empt to subpoena thef ede r a l agencies . The cour t sa id , the ThirdD i s t r i c t Court of Appeals sa id , it was conf rontedwith a s i t ua t i on in which the s t a t e has made i t sb e s t e f f o r t s to obta in the informat ion and documentsand d id no t a l l ege there was any compact o ragreement between the s t a t e and the f ede r a l agenciesnamed in the t r i a l cour t order which would enhanceth e a b i l i t y of th e s t a t e to ob ta in the r eques teddocuments to no ava i l .

The cour t , the Third D i s t r i c t Cour t of Appeal ,



59/66

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

23

quashed th e t r i a l c

Mark O'Mara files Motion for Sanctions Discovery

Documents

Transcript of Mark O'Mara files Motion for Sanctions Discovery